ingly rare, and no such summary action should be taken except in cases falling clearly within the statute, and then the order should be made promptly on coming in of the verdict. In no case should such an order be made after a delay of some months, and where the parties have taken action predicated upon the verdict. Hayne, New Trial & App. §§ 10, 11, pp. 50, 51. The order will be reversed. All concur.
George H. Fuller, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Northern
Pacific Elevator Company, Defendant and Appellant.
Review on Appeal—Sufficiency of Evidence.
1. The conflict in the evidence that prohibits court from interfering with the verdict of a jury on a question of fact should be a substantial and not an illusory conflict.
2. Whenever an appellate court conscientiously and irresistibly reaches the conclusion that a verdict is against the truth and the undoubted weight of the submitted evidence, and could only have been reached by the failure on the part of the jury to exercise an unbiased and unprejudiced judgment, such court should unhesitatingly reverse the order of the trial court refusing to vacate such verdict.
(Opinion Filed Nov. 7, 1891.)
APPEAL from district court, Pembina county; Hon. Charles F, Templeton, Judge.
A. C. Davis, for appellant. W. J. Kneeshaw, for respondent.
Action by George H. Fuller against the Northern Pacific Elevator Company for services rendered. Judgment for plaintiff. Defendant appeals. Reversed.
The opinion of the court was delivered by
Bartholomew, J. This action was brought to recover an alleged balance due on a contract of service. Plaintiff alleges that defendant employed him to work and labor for it, and take charge of one of its elevators for a term of one year, at a monthly salary of $50, commencing August 15, 1889, and that
